Hays-Velasco 1

Isabella Hays-Velasco

Professor Batty

English 102

14 November 2019

Are We the Monsters?: A Psychoanalysis of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

When I was nine, I was scared of dinosaurs because I had a nightmare that a

Tyrannosaurus rex ate the roof of my house. Looking back at that fear, I realized that, one, it was

irrational as dinosaurs are extinct, and, two, the nightmare had a deeper meaning; it represented

the outside forces that were wreaking havoc finally breaking the shaky walls of my home.

Monsters, like dinosaurs, ghosts, and robots, terrify us, but why? They represent facets of

humanity that we try to repress because it is too ugly or horrible to reveal. We fear them because,

in some ways, they are us, or at least reveal parts of us that we do not want to see. Philip Dick’s

1968 science fiction novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, is set in the aftermath of

World War Terminus in a dystopian San Francisco where humans are hunting androids for

killing their human masters and animals are worshipped for their scarcity and used as a tool to

distinguish the difference between humans and androids. Rick Deckard, an android hunter, is

tasked with “retiring” (killing) six androids who escaped from Mars, the planet which most

humans relocated to with the incentive of receiving an android to serve them as Earth turned to a

wasteland, and his mindset towards androids and the predetermined morals of his society

changes with every android he experiences. In juxtaposition with Deckard’s story is the one of

the special, a person who can no longer procreate, Isidore who ends up encountering three of the

escaped androids and becoming a part of their hiding plan. In Do Androids Dream of Electric

Sheep?, the humans view the androids as the monsters because they lack empathy for animals
 Hays-Velasco 2

and have killed their human owners; however, the humans are actually afraid of what the

androids represent: the worst parts of humanity. Moreover, the humans are actually the monsters

through their institutionalized empathy for animals and their complete lack of empathy for

androids.

In all honesty, androids are not sinless creatures. As Rick states in his explanation for

being able to retire androids, “an escaped humanoid robot [...] had killed its master, [...] had no

regard for animals, [... and] possed no ability to feel empathic joy for another life form’s success

or grief at its defeat” (Dick 30). Most androids who escaped Mars terminated their human

masters in order to gain freedom which is a great moral violation; murdering anyone, in most

situations, is typically condemned. Also, androids lack the ability to truly empathize as humans

did not find it necessary to include that quality when creating them, and this lack of empathy,

specifically towards animals, is what humans use to test, with the Voigt-Kampff test, if a person

is a human or an android. Moreover, in the novel, androids have blatantly displayed their lack of

empathy towards animals which are revered in this society. Rachael, an extremely human-like

Nexus 6 android who tricks Rick into thinking she will help him in killing androids and sleeps

with him, “dragged [Rick’s goat] out of its cage, and dragged it to the edge of the roof [, and]

pushed it off” (Dick 208) in retaliation for Rick being able to execute the final three escapees

after sleeping with her. After Isidore excitedly finds a spider, which is rare as sparse living

creatures are found where he lives, the three androids he is helping ponder if the spider “doesn’t

need all those legs” (Dick 189) and proceed to cut off its legs as Isidore pleads for them to stop.

Both of these instances exemplify the disregard androids have towards animals and displays the

cruelty in which they can possess, even if they do not always have a cruel intent. From a

human’s viewpoint in this society, why would they not find androids monstrous and want to kill
 Hays-Velasco 3

something that has both killed their own species and lacks empathy for the one thing they find

sacred? The answer lies in the fact they they created these beings they find so monstrous.

Humans are actually afraid of androids because androids reveal the negative aspects of

humanity and force humans to look at their faults. Humans created androids to serve them on

Mars and used them as a marketing tool to convince people to leave Earth. They were designed

to be extremely intelligent beings, even more so than their creators, who lacked empathy as

humans found it unneccesary to include one of their fundamental morals in beings who were

meant to serve them (Dick 30). As Asa Simon Mittman discusses the qualities of monsters in

literature in his introduction to The Ashgate Research Companion to Monsters and the

Monstrous, he states that monsters “swallow up our cultural mores and expectations, and then,

becoming what they eat , they reflect back to us our own faces, made disgusting or, perhaps,

revealed to always have been so” (Mittman 1). As displayed in the previous paragraph, androids

can be ruthless and do not value the lives of animals. They represent some of the worst qualities

to have in a society that so highly values empathy. Thus, they represent the unfavorable aspects

of humanity that humans strive so hard to work against that they even use a mood organ, a

device that simulates emotions, to encourage the appropriate response. But, as Andrew Howard

notes in his article “The Postmodern Prometheus: Humanity and Narration in the SF Worlds of

Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? And Scott’s Blade Runner.” discussing the

creation of androids and its implication in Dick’s novel and the movie adaptation, a problem

arises when humans protect themselves from the cold, emotionless androids who they are so

threatened by; “the problem of emotion surfaces when the humans have to be the cold,

emotionless killers. “The problem in this killing then would be, ‘Could we not become like the

androids, in our very effort to wipe them out?”’(Howard 112). In killing the androids, humans
 Hays-Velasco 4

become the very thing they despise: empathy-lacking killers. But, they attempt to justify that by

arguing that androids are the killers so therefore, androids need to be killed. However, that paltry

justification simply amplifies the fact that humans are hypocritical and even monstrous

themselves, setting their own standards of morality and ignoring those morals when other beings

defy them.

Empathy for animals is institutionalized in the society of Do Androids Dream of Electric

Sheep?, and the creation of this empathy allows for the humans to justify their horrible treatment

towards other species. As a result of the war, animals began to rapidly die off, and the animals

that were left are revered to that extent that nobody kills animals and the lack of empathy for one

classifies the being as an android. Animals are a vital part of their society as animals define

species and class. Empathy for animals distinguishes if you are a human or an android, and the

rarity of the animal one owns, defines the wealth that they have. In Sherryl Vint’s article

"Speciesism and species being in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?," she discusses the

speciesism between humans, animals, and androids in the novel, and she notes that “if empathy

were as important to the experience of human culture as it is to the ideology of the

human/android boundary, then owning a real animal should be a social relationship, not a

commodity one” (Vint 112). In the novel’s society, one is expected to care for animals because

of the defining qualities caring for an animal establishes. Rick constantly tries to buy a more

lavish animal to distinguish his class and works extremely hard to obtain money so that he can

do so as looking at his electric sheep reminds him that “it’s not the same” (Dick 12) as having a

real one. Whether one has a real animal or an artificial one, having one establishes one’s

empathy towards them and distinguishes that one is a human. If living animals were truly valued,

it would not be a necessity to own an artificial one. The establishment of societal empathy
 Hays-Velasco 5

towards animals allows for humans to continue to be discriminative towards androids.

Furthermore, as Vint notes, the human/animal boundary “is the political core of why animals are

in the novel: it is essential that Mercerism [, the religion in the novel,] is founded on empathy

with animals as it is precisely the human/animal boundary that provides the grounds upon which

to deny empathy and continue exploitation” (Vint 111). Humans are able to justify their

treatments towards androids because they do no fit into the human/animal boundary; androids

lack empathy towards animals so androids can be killed if they misbehave and it will not actually

count as killing. Moreover, androids do not deserve empathy because they cannot feel empathy

towards animals. Humans’ behaviors of creating forced empathy towards animals and alienating

other species in their society based on this criteria is both sanctimonious and horrific.

The complete lack of empathy humans have for androids and the utter disregard they

have for killing another species is monstrous. In Jordana Greenblatt’s article “‘More Human

than Human’: ‘Flattening of Affect,’ Synthetic Humans, and the Social Construction of

Maleness.,” she discusses the relationship between humans and androids. She notes that

“ Persons are bearers of rights. Andys/replicants can only be “retired” because they are

not persons with rights [...] Personhood is not necessarily exclusively human by

definition, and not all humans are always legal people, as in the case [of] slaves and of

women. Meanwhile, the humanity of groups to whom personhood has been denied has

often also been denied.” (Greenblatt 44)

Androids are not people; therefore, they do not have rights based on this logical fallacy. They are

denied humanity and empathy because they do not fall into society’s definition of a person. As

previously stated, androids were created to serve humans, and androids are simply supposed to

accept that. Being born into a life of servitude for humans, who are almost exactly like them
 Hays-Velasco 6

besides the empathy factor, would make anyone question why they are below. It is not surprising

why androids would try to escape as the history of enslaved people has shown us that one can

only be oppressed. As Officer Garland, an android posing as an officer who Rick has to kill,

states, “[it’s] a chance anyway, breaking free and coming here to Earth, where [androids are] not

even considred animals [,] where every worm and wood louse is considered more desirable than

all of [the androids] put together” (Dick 113). The androids are so desperate for freedom that

they will come to a hostile place where they have little worth and are considered nuisances. And,

while their method in which they gain their freedom by killing their master is not the most viable

choice, it is understandable as it evident that humans would not allow them freedom in any form.

Furthermore, humans who base their society’s morals on empathy can justify killing androids.

As Howards explains, “[there] are no narrow, easy criteria that define authentic humans in the

novel, aside from a test that measures levels of empathy in response to certain stimuli. However,

the test, if it does in fact work, only separates supposedly normal humans from androids”

(Howard 111). The humans created androids without a sense of empathy and exploit their fault,

which humans chose to exclude, to justify killing them. The reasoning is incredibly faulty and

cruel as the humans created a system where the androids have no chance of escaping which

displays the selfishness and complete apathy that is a part of the human society in the novel.

In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, humans are actually the monsters as they

created a system based on empathy for animals in order to establish class and species rather than

concern for animals’ well-being, and are apathetic to the androids who they purposefully created

to stay beneath them. While the humans appear to be afraid of the androids because androids

lack empathy and kill human, they are actually afraid of what androids reveal about the

hypocritical nature of their society. Androids may be monsters, but they are a product of humans
 Hays-Velasco 7

which defines humans as monstrous too. Monsters tend to frighten us or make us want to hide,

but looking closer at the monsters allow us to gain a deeper understanding of what we truly fear.

It could be symbolic of a more literal or figurative problem occurring in our lives, or it may

reveal a facet of ourselves that we try to mask. And while it may be terrifying, learning to face

our figurative or literal monsters allows us to recognize what is truly affecting us, deal with it

head on, and learn from that experience. It will allow us to better ourselves by addressing the

negatives in our lives and strengthen our character through the acknowledgement of what we

fear.
 Hays-Velasco 8

Works Cited

Dick, Philip K. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Del Rey, 2017.

Greenblatt, Jordana. “‘More Human than Human’: ‘Flattening of Affect,’ Synthetic Humans, and

the Social Construction of Maleness.” English Studies in Canada, no. 1–2, 2016, p. 41.

EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsglr&AN=edsgcl.4807

08431&site=eds-live.

Howard, Andrew. “The Postmodern Prometheus: Humanity and Narration in the SF Worlds of

Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? And Scott’s Blade Runner.”

Interdisciplinary Humanities, vol. 35, no. 1, Spring 2018, pp. 108–120. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=135448993&site=eds-live.

Mittman, Asa Simon. “The Impact of Monsters and Monster Studies.” The Ashgate Research

Companion to Monsters and the Monstrous, edited by Peter J. Dendle and Asa Simon

Mittman, Routledge, 2017, pp. 1–14.

Vint, Sherryl. "Speciesism and species being in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" Mosaic:

A journal for the interdisciplinary study of literature, vol. 40, no. 1, 2007, p. 111+. Gale

Academic Onefile, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A162353986/AONE?u=lavc_main&si

d=AONE&xid=f20c77e3.